From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #53 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 15 January 1993 Volume 02 : Number 053 In this issue: Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on Re: Video notes Re: Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on Re: Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on Re: U-2 still on duty Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on Those things flying around. Hovering Images Copy of 1986 AURORA P-1 Document Re: Kelly's Blackboard Writing Re: Re: Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on Re: U2s Re: U2s Skunk Works is hiring??? Say, do they need physical chemists? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 02:16:11 PST Subject: Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on The following is from Aerospace Daily, Wednesday January 13, 1993 Aviation Week Group, McGraw-Hill Inc. (this is not AW&ST, however it is owned by the same firm - McGraw-Hill) Aerospace Daily Special report Air Force abondoned SR-71 follow-on in mid-1980s The Air Force gave up on a 1980s attempt to develop a follow-on to the SR-71 Mach 3-plus reconnaissance aircraft because the technology was out of reach and unaffordable, according to active and retired service, Pentagon and industry sources familiar with the program. The aircraft, originally envisioned as succeeding the SR-71 in the 1990 timeframe, was being developed at least in part by Lockheed's Advanced Development Co. or "Skunk Works" unit in Burbank, Calif., but was canceled about 1986, sources said. "There was a program, but we couldn't make it work," an industry source reported. An Air Force official added that "we would have been remiss in our responsibilities if we didn't try." Sources said they were willing to discuss the top-secret, special-access-required program in a limited fashion because of an increasing number of media reports that the AF is operating a hypersonic SR-71 follow-on. They believe, as one source said, that the stories should be "debunked". The aircraft, of which only drawings and small models were made, was to have been capable of sustained speeds of about Mach 4-5 with an intercontinental range. It would have been a large aircraft, about the size of the B-1B bomber, with a long, tapered fuselage. Sources said the AF and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency were pursuing the technology against the wishes of the Central Intelligence Agency, which wanted the funding diverted to develop and procure more sophisticated spy satellites using technologies such as imaging radar. But the AF countered that an aircraft could be more responsive than a satellite if imagery was needed of a location faster than a satellite could be positioned over it. This argument "still holds", a Pentagon source said. Sources were reluctant to discuss the specific technologies that would have been applied to the aircraft, except to say that they were similar to those now being wrestled with on the National Aerospace Plane. "Let me put it this way," an ex-Pentagon official said. "Many of the same people working on NASP (also) tried to make this thing work. If they had succeeded years ago, why would they be having so much trouble now? A senior AF official ridiculed the suggestion - made in some press reports - that NASP is a huge cover for the hypersonic plane. Though unwilling to discuss technical details, sources did say that slush hydrogen or methane was the intended fuel for the aircraft, but that the materials technology didn't exist to keep slush supercooled for the length of a mission in fuel tanks only a few inches from skin temperatures of thousands of degrees. Propulsion technology also had not advanced far enough tp provide the desired increase in capability over the SR-71, sources said. "The analogy of lighting a match in a wind tunnel is valid," observed one source. "It's not an easy thing to do, and it hasn't been done yet." The project "did not, in the final analysis, cost all that much money," an industry source once connected with the program said. "But there was no way to cost it out and see where we would end up. We did not have a blank check, and there were competing programs deemed by the most senior Air Force leadership to have (higher) priority. One of these higher priorities was the B-2 bomber. Ironically, one of the "hiding places" for funding for the then-secret B-2 was "Aurora," a program name which accidently made its way into a 1985 Pentagon budget document. The "Aurora" line item in the P-1, or procurement, budget book was slated to increase to $2.7 billion in 1986 and was listed as an aircraft. This accidental reference is what spawned a near-cottage industry in speculation about a secret hypersonic plane. The speculation increased when the Air Force decided to retire the SR-71 without an obvious successor in public view. Coupled with the AF's clandestine development, production and operation of the F-117 stealth attack plane, many industry observers refused to believe the service's denial that it had an "Aurora" or other top-secret reconnaissance aircraft. Air Force Secretary Donald B. Rice has of late aggressively denied persistent reports of an "Aurora." Sources said Rice has been challenged by members of Congress who also refuse to believe his denial of the program's existence, insisting that they are being kept in the dark about a program for which they are supplying funds. An exasperated Rice told reporters last fall that the persistent rumors are creating "certain beliefs and expectations in some quarters that are just unfounded" (DAILY, Nov. 2). Rice said the reports have "gotten way out of hand," and he added "categorically" that "the system described in those articles does not exist. We have no aircraft that flies at six times the speed of sound or anything up close to that." He said such a program would be impossible to conceal because it would involve too many people and cost too much money. During the years of speculation about the then-secret F-117, Air Force officials and spokesmen never categorically denied the program's existence, but instead chose the ambiguous, "I have nothing for you on that," or a flat "no comment." (To Be Continued) There are at least a few humorous sections up there. I like the one about lighting a match in a wind tunnel never being done before. If we give the poor guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant the old comment about scramjet combustion as "like lighting a match in a hurricane", then he's still wrong. It has been done. It was done first in the late 50's, and most recently (at least in public) by the Russians. And also probably countless times under the NASP project, if we believe the NASP status reports. I have a suspicion about their F-117 comment at the bottom above as well. Time to dig out that old mid-80's stealth fighter stuff to see if their statement is true. I also get a kick out of Rice's comment about such a program being impossible to conceal. I say EXACTLY! I think we should ask Mr. Rice if he would like to go on a foray with one of the recent groups that went to the Groom area! Maybe we sould ask some Congressmen if they'd like to go as well. Boy wouldn't that be a trick when the Groom security guys find the Secretary of the Air Force or a US Congress/Senate person out there being a skunk like us! Larry ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 05:21:57 MST Subject: Re: Video notes Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes: >Dean writes: >>There was a program on Discovery Channel last night called "Spytech" >There was a brief scene in which Kelly Johnson was shown writing something >on a blackboard. I couldn't make out very much of it, but the last three >words were unmistakably "...to Area 51." Right. That is from an old Lockheed film. It is referring to the shipment of the very first A-12 to Groom Lake for flight testing. >Also, as an aside, there was a short segment on the Lockheed Aquila RPV. Yea, that was pretty interesting as well. >I participated in this program when I worked for Lockheed, first in the >test program at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, and later in the training program >at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, in the mid-Eighties. My manager at the time, Bill >Fox (the guy with the red Lockheed cap) was interveiewed for the segment. >All in all, a pretty good program. They got a few of their facts mixed up, and showed a lot of comsat video while talking about Military satellites, but there was still plenty of other good material included. - -dean ------------------------------ From: Rick Lafford Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 08:24:11 EST Subject: Re: Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on Could this be a wonderful opportunity for additional disinformation by our wonderful government. Either we have UFO's flying around the west coast, which you know just couldn't be true ;-) or someone has something unusual flying. Can't have your cake and eat it too (unless you happen to be a politician). (The other) Rick ------------------------------ From: Belly up to the Clue Bar and have one on me. 14-Jan-1993 0840 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 09:14:36 EST Subject: Re: Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on This is the second bit of info I've seen on secret mid-80s USAF recon programs that supposedly came to naught. In the 10/1/90 AW&ST issue that discussed several of the secret vehicles in flight test, a reference was made to a Lockheed concept, supposedly called Aurora, that was a Mach 8 TAV. This program was supposedly abandoned for the same reason, immature technology, as the system that Aerospace Daily described. It also provides the AF with the opportunity to specifically deny the existence of Aurora (as opposed to a vehicle with Aurora-class performance, but named something else). Larry, do you think/suspect/SWAG that the program described in Aerospace Daily is related to those NASA/Lockheed/P&W Mach 5 penetrator studies which you mentioned yesterday? Interesting that the two articles on stealth/Aurora vehicles in that issue of AW&ST appeared without a byline, which is not common for important technology/policy articles in that journal. NASP may not be a cover for Aurora, but the mid-80s DARPA program called Copper Canyon, a technology development program for aerospace planes, just might have been. On denial, the government could "plausibly" deny the existence of Aurora-class vehicles by funding the contractor to operate them. "The US Government does not have such a vehicle," says the Secretary of the AF, the CIA Director, etc. True statement, but it might finance the operation of one by, say, Lockheed or Rockwell. "I know of no such program," says the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman. True, nor should he have to. But he does know of the line item in the operations budget under which money goes out and intelligence comes in. Makes for an interesting situation should one of these government-funded contractor-operated (GFCO?) Auroras be brought down in hostile territory, but that risk seems manageable. Also, they could be just lying, of course. Government officials have been known to do that, and, every once in a while, they lie for all the right motives. George ------------------------------ From: Ian Woodrow Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 15:24:24 GMT Subject: Re: U-2 still on duty sp2stes1@obelix.his.se < Stefan Skoglund > writes > TR-1A is still on duty. > I think two is in the UK based at Mildenhall. > They belong to NATO. > > Mildenhall has one HAS for each. Actually the TR-1s operate from Alconbury. There used to be a U-2 based at Mildenhall so maybe that's what the HAS is all about. Also, an SR-71 opped from Mildenhall right up until they went out of service. ------------------------------ From: serafini@nas.nasa.gov (David B. Serafini) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 10:31:46 -0800 Subject: Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 02:16:11 PST From: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith) Sender: skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk The following is from Aerospace Daily, Wednesday January 13, 1993 Aviation Week Group, McGraw-Hill Inc. (this is not AW&ST, however it is owned by the same firm - McGraw-Hill) Aerospace Daily Special report Air Force abondoned SR-71 follow-on in mid-1980s [...] Sources said they were willing to discuss the top-secret, special-access-required program in a limited fashion because of an increasing number of media reports that the AF is operating a hypersonic SR-71 follow-on. They believe, as one source said, that the stories should be "debunked". The 'uncleared' bloodhounds are getting to close - time to through them off the scent! :-) The aircraft, of which only drawings and small models were made, was to have been capable of sustained speeds of about Mach 4-5 with an intercontinental range. It would have been a large aircraft, about the size of the B-1B bomber, with a long, tapered fuselage. Sounds like the Lockheed Mach 5 design to me. Sources said the AF and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency were pursuing the technology against the wishes of the Central Intelligence Agency, which wanted the funding diverted to develop and procure more sophisticated spy satellites using technologies such as imaging radar. But the AF countered that an aircraft could be more responsive than a satellite if imagery was needed of a location faster than a satellite could be positioned over it. This argument "still holds", a Pentagon source said. And the AF has _still_ never come up with a good reason to counter this argument. So what are they using for fast-positioning imagery? Not KH-11's, that's for sure. Sources were reluctant to discuss the specific technologies that would have been applied to the aircraft, except to say that they were similar to those now being wrestled with on the National Aerospace Plane. "Let me put it this way," an ex-Pentagon official said. "Many of the same people working on NASP (also) tried to make this thing work. If they had succeeded years ago, why would they be having so much trouble now? Nice phrasing here. The real issue isn't why did 'they' fail years ago, it's why haven't 'they' succeeded yet. As good as the Skunk Works were and are, the NASP program has has a billion $ in funding and most of the aerospace business working on it. Although NASP itself hasn't been a success, (and that's a long story in itself) many of the technology development ("maturation" in NASP-speak) programs have, and I could believe that Lockheed has taken all this new technology and built something flyable with it. The other thing to remember is that the NASP goal is single-stage-to-orbit. There's a huge difference between orbit at Mach 20 and 150K feet at Mach 8. "Aurora" is an easier problem than NASP. A senior AF official ridiculed the suggestion - made in some press reports - that NASP is a huge cover for the hypersonic plane. May not have been intended as one from the onset, but it could have become one over time. Some of the nightmarish management decisions made during this program - goals being changed, designs never allowed to solidify, priorities shifted on a yearly basis, - could almost be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to insure that the project doesn't succeed. On the other hand, they could also be interpreted as the thrashing of incompetent techno-bureaucrats in the face of uncertain and decreasing funding. Though unwilling to discuss technical details, sources did say that slush hydrogen or methane was the intended fuel for the aircraft, but that the materials technology didn't exist to keep slush supercooled for the length of a mission in fuel tanks only a few inches from skin temperatures of thousands of degrees. More likely methane than slush hydrogen. Propulsion technology also had not advanced far enough tp provide the desired increase in capability over the SR-71, sources said. "The analogy of lighting a match in a wind tunnel is valid," observed one source. "It's not an easy thing to do, and it hasn't been done yet." This is both false and irrelevant. This is a reference to the scramjet problem of burning fuel in a supersonic flow - how do you keep the igniters lit. (how you make the fuel burn before it gets out of the airplane is another, separate,issue) It's false because solutions to this have been demonstrated in NASP work. It's irrelevant because the Lockheed Mach 5 design used a _subsonic_ ramjet, and that's old hat technology-wise. The project "did not, in the final analysis, cost all that much money," an industry source once connected with the program said. "But there was no way to cost it out and see where we would end up. We did not have a blank check, and there were competing programs deemed by the most senior Air Force leadership to have (higher) priority. This argument doesn't convince me. Given the sky-high cost of the B2 and KH-11 projects, a few more billions for recon aircraft doesn't seem that ridiculous. Also, Lockheed ASD is well-known for their cost-efficiency. [...] Air Force Secretary Donald B. Rice has of late aggressively denied persistent reports of an "Aurora." Sources said Rice has been challenged by members of Congress who also refuse to believe his denial of the program's existence, insisting that they are being kept in the dark about a program for which they are supplying funds. Here's the crux, maybe. Congress is starting to poke it's head into the AF's black budget, and I would believe that the AF boys don't want anybody looking at the way they've rampaged through the candy store when nobody's been looking, and they sure as hell don't want more oversight in the future. Larry David ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 10:32:25 PST Subject: Those things flying around. Well, if you want to be precise, The UFO designation fits these unknown aircraft types, too. Does that make this a UFO mailing list? 8-) Rick (The Seattle one) ------------------------------ From: joeh@words.mti.sgi.com (Joseph Heinrich) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 10:26:30 PST Subject: Hovering Images Rick-- There was a show on the Arts&Entertainment channel last night, part of the series titled "This Century," or "Our Century," or something similar. Anyway, pilots were describing the method they used to laser-designate targets in Desert Storm. They called it "buddy lasing," where one pilot lases the target while the second drops its ordnance. This second pilot then joins what one pilot called a "wheel," taking its turn lasing new target(s). I just came in at the tail end of the description, however this might explain some of the below... --Joe > >Is it possible that the "near hover" images look that way because of the >altitude of the imaging aircraft. Remember that these imagers are gyro >stabilized and pointed at a specific point on the ground. The effects of the >relative motions on the image are not noticable unless the aircraft is moving >very rapidly or quitel low. The low altitude guided munitions strike images >really show both the movement and bank attitude of the aircraft. > > > >An additional note, some of the images released of building and bunker >strikes were taken buy the guidance aircraft, not the drop aircraft. The use >of one aircraft to designate the target while another flies the delivery >profile allows great flexibility. Note that the bombs dropped down the vent >shafts of both bunkers and the Ministry of Defense were falling almost >vertically. Not the typical path an object dropped from a low fast flying >aircraft would take. Using two aircraft, the first could toss the bomb into >the "basket" and the second could designate the impact point. Hence, the >images of the MoD strike were almost from verticall overhead when the bomb(s) >struck. > > (The other) Rick > >--------------- >Rick Lafford >Eastman Kodak Co. >lafford@serum.kodak.com >===================================== ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 12:00:16 -0800 Subject: Copy of 1986 AURORA P-1 Document Hello Jeff, I hope you don't mind me answering this question on the list. It is somewhat confusing. > I'm sure you already noticied this, but in the Aerospace Daily >article, how can the Aurora budget item be atributed to the B-2 if it has >always been connected to Lockheed? Was it a mistake for the Aurora item to be >associated with Lockheed or were they really scheduled to recieve 2.7 billion >directly from the government for whatever subcontract roles they might have >had on the B-2? The Aurora line item in the P-1 document doesn't say anything about Lockheed. The Lockheed tie-in was made later in a magazine (I don't have it handy, but I probably have it somewhere in my stacks). If I recall, the article said something about a cancelled Lockheed high-speed vehicle concept, that was named Aurora, or it may have been a quote of an ex-Lockheed person saying that there once was a high-speed aircraft project that had been cancelled, that they had called Aurora. It sounded to me like a comment to kill the speculation of the time about Aurora. By the way, here is a reproduction of the appropriate page of that famous 'Aurora' reference: It comes from the following document: Cover: PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS (P-1) Department of Defense Budget For Fiscal Year 1986 February 4, 1985 On page F-5 you see the following: UNCLASSIFIED Department Of The Air Force FY 1986 Procurement Program Exhibit P-1 Appropriation: 3010 F Aircraft Procurement, Air Force Date: 04, Feb 1985 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Millions Of Dollars (Dollars) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- S Line Ident FY 1986 -----FY 1984---- -----FY 1985---- -----FY 1986---- -----FY 1987----- E No Item Nomenclature Code Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost O ----- --------- -------- ------- -------- ----- -------- ----- -------- ------ - Other Aircraft 28 AURORA B 80.1 2272.4 U 29 TR-1/U-2 A 44,050,000 6 (164.1) 4 (185.6) 8 (352.4) 2 (110.0)U Less: Advance Procurement (PY) (-8.4) (-16.7) (-8.5) ------- ------ ------ ------ 155.7 168.9 343.9 110.0 30 TR-1/U-2 Advance Procurement (CY) 16.7 8.5 U ------- ------ ------ ------ Total Other Aircraft 172.4 219.8 540.0 2707.1 I've heard that Page F-4 had a major heading that the 'Other Aircraft' category appeared under, of something like 'Airbreathing Reconnaissance,' but I don't have a copy of that page. It shouldn't be hard to get. You will also notice that the totals for 'Other Aircraft' don't add-up in all columns. They do in FY 1984, but not afterwards. Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 12:11:26 -0800 Subject: Re: Kelly's Blackboard Writing Geoff Miller writes: >There was a brief scene in which Kelly Johnson was shown writing something >on a blackboard. I couldn't make out very much of it, but the last three >words were unmistakably "...to Area 51." Yes. That was the schedule for the very first A-12, Article #121, or Archangel #121 :) . Looking at the dates on the blackboard, and the confirmation verbage in OXCART History, that meeting was held at least in 1962, and maybe even in 1961. This is what was on the board: Schedule for #121 Feb 17 - Aircraft Complete Feb 18 - Aircraft put down on its gear Feb 19 - Feb 22 - Engineering Final Tests Feb 23 - 25 - Disassemble and load on trucks Feb 26 - 4:00 AM - Move out to Area 51 ------- -------------- ------- (the "4:00 AM" and "out to Area 51" were underlined, "4:00 AM" was HEAVILY underlined). Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 12:39:07 -0800 Subject: Re: Re: Air Force mid-80s SR-71 follow-on George writes: >This is the second bit of info I've seen on secret mid-80s USAF recon >programs that supposedly came to naught. In the 10/1/90 AW&ST issue that >discussed several of the secret vehicles in flight test, a reference was >made to a Lockheed concept, supposedly called Aurora, that was a Mach 8 >TAV. This program was supposedly abandoned for the same reason, immature >technology, as the system that Aerospace Daily described. It also provides >the AF with the opportunity to specifically deny the existence of Aurora >(as opposed to a vehicle with Aurora-class performance, but named something >else). OK good, there's the reference to the Lockheed 'Aurora'. Also I agree that it may not be an Air Force vehicle. But, if Groom Lake has a base commander that is USAF, they have to know about it! Maybe an arrangement like the one for the original A-12 blackbirds. They were CIA birds, but the USAF certainly helped! USAF got their own version(s) later. Since NRO operates many 'collection' systems, maybe it's theirs. It doesn't matter who owns it, the several teams of people who have been there recently certainly report something VERY loud. Maybe we should change the question to: "OK, what's that loud pulsing thing at Groom"? Maybe it's a new steam locomotive or something :) George writes: >Larry, do you think/suspect/SWAG that the program described in Aerospace >Daily is related to those NASA/Lockheed/P&W Mach 5 penetrator studies which >you mentioned yesterday? I posted: >> The aircraft, of which only drawings and small models were made, was to >> have been capable of sustained speeds of about Mach 4-5 with an >> intercontinental range. It would have been a large aircraft, about the >> size of the B-1B bomber, with a long, tapered fuselage. David writes: >Sounds like the Lockheed Mach 5 design to me. I am suspicious as well that they might be the same. Larry ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 21:42:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: U2s Someone asked whether the US was still flying U-2s (new mail reader, new problems). Well, the answer is yes and no. The original U-2s were replaced with TR-2s and the U-2s were retired. Then USAF renamed the TR-2s the U-2. Go figure. The TR-2 is bigger than the U-2 and has an improved engine. NASA flies them as the ER-2 (ER for earth resources, TR for tactial recce). NASA also flew the last original U-2. They set a whole batch of records with it, flying out of Plant 42 and using our range. Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 23:37:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: U2s Typo alert! On Thu, 14 Jan 1993, Mary Shafer wrote: > Someone asked whether the US was still flying U-2s (new mail reader, > new problems). > > Well, the answer is yes and no. The original U-2s were replaced > with TR-2s and the U-2s were retired. Then USAF renamed the TR-2s > the U-2. Go figure. > > The TR-2 is bigger than the U-2 and has an improved engine. NASA flies > them as the ER-2 (ER for earth resources, TR for tactial recce). Of course, that's the TR-1, not the TR-2. I've spent most of the week watching papers on hypersonics and my mind is a little addled. Or maybe it was the snow. Not exactly a skunk-works thing, but the Nevada ANG still flies _my_ favorite airplane, in a recce version. Phantoms Phorever! They sortied a two-man in a section takeoff as I went for my rental car--welcome to Reno. That just about made the four days of the AIAA Aerospace Sciences conference worth it, especially the six hours of committee meetings (I'm on the AFM TC now). Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com ------------------------------ From: att!clockwise!oski Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 00:39:07 EST Subject: Skunk Works is hiring??? Say, do they need physical chemists? Anyone have an address to write to? I am finishing my postdoc at Bell Labs and am wondering if p-chem is of any use to aircraft companies. --- Ravi Narasimhan oski@clockwise.att.com ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #53 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).